Slashdot Mirror
SCO Accuses IBM of Destruction of Evidence
Udo Schmitz writes "According to an article at Forbes, SCO claims that IBM destroyed evidence by ordering programmers to delete copies of code that could have helped SCO prove its case. SCO's attorney Brent Hatch says that 'one IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests' and that they didn't mention this in public, because it only became relevant now, and that 'the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed'." From the article: "IBM declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing ongoing litigation. In her sharply worded ruling, Wells criticized SCO's conduct in the case and seemed to indicate she was annoyed with the company. 'I don't know if that's true or not, but that's a question I'm asking myself,' Hatch says. Hatch concedes the Wells ruling represented a setback for SCO. But he says SCO still has a strong case. "
Unless this work was done *perfectly* it would be really obvious to anyone going through the source tree history (which SCO has), and even then is easy to verify by compiling release trees and doing a binary diff against them (well, decompiling both then diffing might be better).
SCO are flat out lying, whether just to the public, or to their lawyers as well. The only reason I think IBM are continuing with this is to get each and every claim SCO has specifically and individually struck down so when the house of cards finally does crumble they have no way to try it again.
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
I note, with some amusement, that SCO shares, which have been hovering at the $4.50 mark for about 2 years, suddenly dropped to $2.50 about 10 days ago. Trading volumes are absolutely miniscule. I think we are seeing the end coming.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
No, this is just more of SCO purposefully not understanding how software development works.
To do otherwise would be the exception, not the norm.
Just an aside, Brent Hatch appears to be the son of Senator Orrin Hatch. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/i s_20030601/ai_n11398911 would seem to bear that out, unless there is another Utah lawyer named Brent Hatch who isn't Sen Hatch's son.
Not sure if it means anything, but I thought it was interesting.
SCO is in this so deep they cannot keep their lies straight. Here in the peanut gallery I am anxiously awaiting the moment where IBM lawyers get to dissect SCO's line of reasoning from beginning to end and put that miserable company out of existence, then watch Novell's actions when they go after SCO execs for libel and breach of contract. The whole SCO situation is far more entertaining than most of today's drivel on television (which is a sad statement of what passes for entertainment today).
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50